Background The COMPLETE (Complete vs Culprit-only Revascularization to Treat Multi-vessel Disease After Early PCI for STEMI) trial demonstrated that staged nonculprit lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduced major cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of nonculprit-lesion PCI timing on major CV outcomes and also the time course of the benefit of complete revascularization. Methods Following culprit-lesion PCI, 4,041 patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized to staged nonculprit-lesion PCI or culprit-lesion only PCI. Randomization was stratified according to investigator-planned timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI: during or after the index hospitalization. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of CV death or myocardial infarction (MI). In pre-specified analyses, hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for each time stratum. Landmark analyses of the entire population were performed within 45 days and after 45 days. Results For nonculprit-lesion PCI planned during the index hospitalization (actual time: median 1 day), CV death or MI was reduced with complete revascularization compared with culprit-lesion only PCI (HR: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 1.00). For nonculprit lesion PCI planned to occur after hospital discharge (actual time: median 23 days), CV death or MI was also reduced with complete revascularization (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.97; interaction p = 0.62). Landmark analyses demonstrated an HR of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.59 to 1.24) during the first 45 days and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.54 to 0.89) from 45 days to the end of follow-up for intended nonculprit lesion PCI versus culprit lesion only PCI. Conclusions Among STEMI patients with multivessel disease, the benefit of complete revascularization over culprit-lesion only PCI was consistent irrespective of the investigator-determined timing of nonculprit-lesion intervention. The benefit of complete revascularization on hard clinical outcomes emerged mainly over the long term.

Background Femoral access is the gold standard for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Guidelines recommend reconsidering surgery when this access is not feasible. However, alternative peripheral accesses exist, although they have not been accurately compared with femoral access. Objectives This study compared nonfemoral peripheral (n-FP) TAVR with femoral TAVR. Methods Using the data from the national prospective French registry (FRANCE TAVI [French Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation]), this study compared the characteristics and outcomes of TAVR procedures according to whether they were performed through a femoral or a n-FP access, using a pre-specified propensity score−based matching between groups. Subanalysis during 2 study periods (2013 to 2015 and 2016 to 2017) and among low/intermediate-low and intermediate-high/high volume centers were performed. Results Among 21,611 patients, 19,995 (92.5%) underwent femoral TAVR and 1,616 (7.5%) underwent n-FP TAVR (transcarotid, n = 914 or trans-subclavian, n = 702). Patients in the n-FP access group had more severe disease (mean logistic EuroSCORE 19.95 vs. 16.95; p < 0.001), with a higher rate of peripheral vascular disease, known coronary artery disease, chronic pulmonary disease, and renal failure. After matching, there was no difference in the rate of post-procedural death and complications according to access site, except for a 2-fold lower rate of major vascular complications (odds ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.21 to 0.93; p = 0.032) and unplanned vascular repairs (odds ratio: 0.41; 95% confidence interval: 0.29 to 0.59; p < 0.001) in those who underwent n-FP access. The comparison of outcomes provided similar results during the second study period and in intermediate-high/high volume centers. Conclusions n-FP TAVR is associated with similar outcomes compared with femoral peripheral TAVR, except for a 2-fold lower rate of major vascular complications and unplanned vascular repairs. n-FP TAVR may be favored over surgery in patients who are deemed ineligible for femoral TAVR and may be a safe alternative when femoral access risk is considered too high.